Em dom., 26 de mai. de 2024 às 04:41, Peter P. <peterpar...@fastmail.com> escreveu:
> From the few sources explaining pd64 > http://puredata.info/downloads/pd-double > https://www.katjaas.nl/doubleprecision/doubleprecision.html Hmm, these are outdated sources that do not really mention the current Pd64 release. So it can be quite misleading and confusing. It should be edited/updated. The actual source should and must be the Manual as well, by the way, but info about it is pretty limited so far, as this is not officially supported yet. I will try to improve this a bit for the upcoming release, but I would also like to reinforce and ask about finally officially supporting this. By the way, https://msp.ucsd.edu/Pd_documentation/x4.htm#s4.1.2.1 shows a table of possible extensions, and I have some questions. Can't .pd_linux, .pd_darwin, .d_fat, .dll be 64 bit? As well as .m_amd64, .d_arm64 and .l_arm64 and stuff? I mean, probably they "can", but the idea was to create new extension possibilities to distinct single and double precision, right? While we're at it, can i386 be 64? really? As in .linux-i386-64.so, .darwin-i386-64.so and .windows-i386-64.dll? cheers > > I suspect that externals have to be compiled for double precision as > well? Will I have to install specific externals via Deken or apt then? > Are all™ such externals available in both flavours? > > From skimming Katja's article, I understand that memory usage of patches > in pd64 will be larger than in single precision. Will cpu usage also > increase? > > Thanks for any help understanding this better! > cheersz, P > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
